Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the License Plate Readers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lakeville police outline 20‑camera license‑plate‑reader plan, emphasize privacy safeguards
Summary
Police presented a proposed citywide license‑plate‑reader (LPR) deployment focused on major ingress corridors, described vendor and data‑ownership options, estimated first‑year costs, and highlighted privacy protections including a 30‑day retention policy and no facial recognition.
Lakeville police presented a plan to deploy license‑plate‑reader (LPR) cameras at major entry points to the city and described operational controls and costs during a council work session.
Speaker 2, presenting for police staff, said LPRs would capture motion‑activated images (not continuous video) and create a vehicular "fingerprint" (plate plus make, model, color and distinguishing features) to assist investigations even when plates are altered. “There are no facial recognition technology in any of the cameras,” Speaker 2 said, adding officers could not query by searching for people.
The presentation emphasized corridor deployments rather than residential installations; a draft map discussed during the meeting focused cameras on ingress routes and major corridors (I‑35, Kenwood, Elmer Road, Cedar Avenue, County Road 70 and 185th Street). The presenters said the system was intended to create a digital gateway so police could know whether a vehicle entered or left the city and provide investigative leads.
On privacy and oversight, Speaker 2 said Minnesota statute allows a 60‑day retention window but the proposed city policy would use a 30‑day automatic deletion unless tied to an active investigation; staff said audit logs, restricted user access and required reasons for queries would be part of the policy. Speaker 2 described the use of a front‑facing dashboard for transparency, citing Edina as an example, and noted mutual‑aid agreements are important to share actionable hotlists (Amber Alerts, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children feeds and Minnesota BCA products).
Cost and procurement: presenters discussed vendor options (referred to as "Flock" in the presentation) and an ownership/license model where vendor hardware and maintenance are vendor‑owned; the transcript records an installation figure referenced as $7,050 and an annual service/license fee of $3,000 per camera, with a first‑year total quoted as $67,050 for a 20‑camera deployment. Staff said funding could be covered by repurposing 2025 budget quantities to avoid a new levy impact. Council members asked about private business LPRs sharing data (businesses may opt in; access still controlled by public safety) and how officers receive alerts (app/text alerts were described).
No formal vote on LPR deployment occurred during the session; staff said additional policy and site‑map work, infrastructure approvals and mutual‑aid discussion would follow before any procurement or deployment.
